Civil Procedure

Following the en banc decision in In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig. (Espinoza v. Ahearn) (9th Cir. 2019) 926 F.3d 539, this decision holds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in avoiding a detailed analysis of varying applicable state laws in certifying a setlttement-only class in this case.  That was particularly true as one of… Read More

California does not allow recovery of damages for the shortened life expectancy caused by plaintiff's contracting a disease from the defendant's product.  And, in awarding damages for pain and suffering, the jury may only award such damages during the period the plaintiff is actually expected to live due the contracted disease. Read More

In this wrongful death action, the trial court properly granted Kaiser summary judgment based on the going and coming rule.  Kaiser's volunteer had finished providing dog therapy to one of Kaiser's patients and was returning home when the volunteer struch and killed plaintiffs' decedant.  The required-vehicle exception to the going and coming rule did not apply because there was no… Read More

Eminent domain actions are special proceedings governed by the Eminent Domain Law, CCP 1230.10 et seq.  In eminent domain proceedings, a party may bring a pretrial motion for a ruling on “an evidentiary or other legal issue affecting the determination of compensation" under CCP 1260.040(a).  Inverse condemnation actions, however, a common law suits that are not governed by the Eminent… Read More

Applying Singapore law in accordance with a stock purchase agreement's choice of law clause, this decision holds that the employer did not breach that agreement when it bought back the employee's stock after having fired him.  The agreement provided for an employer buy back at market value of the stock if the employee left employment voluntarily or involuntarily for any… Read More

Following Urbino v. Orkin Services of California, Inc. (9th Cir. 2013) 726 F.3d 1118, this decision holds that statutory penalties cannot be aggregated in a PAGA suit to meet the $75,000 amount in controversy threshold for traditional diversity jurisdiction purposes.  Instead, the statutory penalties and attorrney fees attributable solely to the named plaintiff must exceed $75,000 for there to be… Read More

Both employer and employee signed a three-page standalone arbitration agreement, but both failed to put their initials by the bolded provision that said both waived the right to a jury trial.  This decision holds that the parties are bound by the arbitration agreement.  Their signatures showed their assent to its terms which unequivocally bound them to arbitrate.  The employee's uncommunicated… Read More

This decision reverses a summary judgment for the defendant in a medical malpractice case.  It holds that the defendant did not satisfy its initial summary judgment burden because the expert witness declaration which was the centerpiece of its motion failed to state reasons and a factual basis for the conclusion that the defendant had conformed to the applicable professional standard… Read More

Two years after this case was removed to federal court on diversity grounds, the parties discovered that one of the properties at issue in the case was partly owned by a trust of which one trustee was a non-diverse California resident.  The plaintiff moved to join the non-diverse trustee as a defendant.  The district court granted the joinder, severed the… Read More

In reviewing an order denying an Anti-SLAPP motion in a malicious prosecution case, the appellate court applies the norrmal standard of review, drawing all inferences in favor of the non-moving party.  Those inferences will not affect the case when it proceeds to trial.  And the appellate court's affirmance of the order denying the Anti-SLAPP motion will only preclude a summary… Read More

Summary judgment was properly entered for the employer in this wage and hour case.  The employer's expert showed that the employer's time rounding of clock in and out times to the nearest 15 minutes was facially neutral and neutral in practice as well.  Also, the employer disproved the employee's claim that he was denied meal and rest breaks.  Each weekly… Read More

An order granting a new trial on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence must be supported by a specification of reasons that does more than just recite ultimate facts.  The specification must point to the evidence which convinced the trial court that there was insufficient evidence on a particular issue.  Here, the specification of reasons did not do so. … Read More

An action for an accounting upon dissolution of a corporation is not a special proceeding or an action for declaratory relief and thus is an action that triggers the compulsory cross-complaint rule under CCP 426.10 et seq. Read More

While a plaintiff may raise new legal theories on appeal from a dismissal on a general demurrer attacking the legal sufficiency of the complaint's factual allegations, that rule does not apply to an appeal from a dismissal on the ground that the claims alleged in the complaint are barred by the compulsory cross-complaint rule codified in CCP 426.10.  An appellate… Read More

It is error to dismiss an original complaint without leave to amend unless the complaint discloses on its face a reason why it cannot be amended to state a viable claim.  On appeal from such a dismissal, the appellant need not show anything in the record demonstrates that the complaint can be amended to allege a viable claim; rather, the… Read More

In the exercise of their equitable powers, courts may equitably toll statutes of limitation except when the Legislature has clearly indicated its intent that a limitations period not by extended by equitable tolling.  Gov. Code 11523, which sets a 30-day deadline for filing a petition for administrative mandate to review administrative determinations, does not clearly exclude equitable tolling.  Thus, equitable… Read More

While a default judgment may not award damages in an amount greater than that alleged in the complaint, it is not necessary to plead the amount of prejudgment interest, costs or attorney fees.  A default judgment which may otherwise properly award prejudgment interest, costs and attorney fees may do so even if the total judgment, including those items, exceeds the… Read More

A defendant against whom a default has properly been entered is not entitled to service of notice of hearing on entry of default judgment or to service of a copy of the evidence submitted in support of the default judgment.  Also, since the defaulted defendant has no right to participate in the prove-up hearing, it cannot show any prejudice from… Read More

Despite the Erie Doctrine, federal law limits the equity jurisdiction of federal courts.  Federal courts may not issue equitable relief if the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law, and that rule holds true even in a diversity case otherwise governed by state law and even though state law might allow state courts, hearing the same claim, to award equitable… Read More

An order denying a motion for a judicial reference is not an appealable order even when made as an alternative to a motion to compel arbitration.  Here, the parties' agreement provided for arbitration of disputes with the exception of those involving debts secured by California real property, and as to those provided that either party could demand a judicial reference… Read More